Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, result volume, pagination, rate limits, or coverage per base. It only hints at input syntax; the presence of an output schema excuses return-value explanation but not the operational characteristics an agent needs before calling an 11-parameter search.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The telegraphic, front-loaded format is dense and waste-free: one clause per parameter with no filler. It is under-specified rather than bloated, so the terseness costs completeness but not structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, which removes the need to describe return values. But with 11 optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the definition leaves too much unspecified — notably requete, which is likely the free-text query and is the single most consequential missing definition.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for four parameters: base (with values), numero (with a 21-21.185 example), du/au (AAAA-MM-JJ), and tri (pertinence/date). Six parameters remain entirely undocumented — ecli, requete (arguably the primary full-text query), juridiction, formation, limite, publiees_seulement — leaving the most important retrieval knobs unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Recherche de décisions" names a specific verb and resource, and the enumerated base values (jade, cass, capp, inca, constit, cnil) make clear this searches French case-law databases. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling rechercher_jurisprudence_ue or from lire_decision, so the agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool rather than rechercher_loi, rechercher_jurisprudence_ue, or lire_decision, and no prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The agent is left to infer routing from the base list alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.